2014 MLD 693 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

TARIQ ALI VS Mst. RUBINA BANO 2006 SCMR 152, Constitutional petition--TERM , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--15 , S. 15---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Scope---Application for ejectment of tenant---Bona fide personal need of landlady---Ejectment petition was dismissed by Rent Controller which was accepted partly by the Appellate Court on the ground of personal bona fide need of landlord---Appellate Court maintained the dismissal of eviction petition on the ground of default in payment of rent as same was not challenged by the landlady---Validity---Landlady did not disclose in her evidence the nature of business she intended to establish at the demised premises---Another shop belonging to landlady which was bigger than the demised premises was lying vacant and was in her possession prior to filing of rent petition---Landlady had tried to improve her case in her evidence as same was not consistent with the averments made by her in her eviction petition---Landlady had not mentioned either in eviction petition or her evidence that another shop was lying vacant and was in her possession and same was not suitable for the business she intended to start---Landlady was bound to give plausible and satisfactory ground/explanation to occupy a particular premises in preference to occupy any other premises available for occupation and use---Such concealment made by the landlady had not only negated her good faith and bona fide but had also demolished her case---No reason was given by the Appellate Court for disagreeing with the well-reasoned findings of Rent Controller---Impugned judgment was vague and non-speaking which was passed without appreciation of evidence on record---Appellate Court was bound to give its own independent and logical reasons for setting aside judgment of Rent Controller---Appellate Court had committed grave error in law by not giving reasons for disagreeing with the findings of Rent Controller---Findings of Appellate Court were erroneous and were based on misreading of evidence---Appellate Court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it---High Court having inherent and constitutional powers to remedy/correct the wrong committed by the courts below when judgments/orders were passed either without exercising jurisdiction vested in them or by exercising jurisdiction not vested in them---Impugned judgment was declared to be of no legal effect and same was set aside---Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.